ArticleBMJ open2021
Women's perceptions and self-reports of excessive bleeding during and after delivery: findings from a mixed-methods study in Northern Nigeria.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, detection, and management of postpartum haemorrhage: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Postpartum menstrual equity: Video and audio analysis of vaginal bleeding counseling during postpartum inpatient care at a southeastern US tertiary hospital.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore lay perceptions of bleeding during and after delivery, and measure the frequency of self-reported indicators of bleeding.
settingYola, North-East Nigeria.
participantsWomen aged 15-49 years who delivered in the preceding 2 years of data collection period (2015-2016), and their family members who played key roles.
methodsData on perceptions of bleeding were collected through 7 focus group discussions, 21 in-depth interviews and 10 family interviews. Sampling was purposive and data were analysed thematically. A household survey was then conducted with 640 women using cluster sampling on postpartum bleeding indicators developed from the qualitative data; data were analysed descriptively.
resultsPerceptions of excessive bleeding fell under four themes: quantity of blood lost; rate/duration of blood flow; symptoms related to blood loss and receiving birth interventions/hearing comments from birth attendants. Young and less educated rural women had difficulty quantifying blood loss objectively, including when shown quantities using bottles. Respondents felt that acceptable blood loss levels depended on the individual woman and whether the blood is 'good' or 'diseased/bad.' Respondents believed that 'diseased' blood was a normal result of delivery and universally took steps to help it 'come out.' In the quantitative survey, indicators representing less blood loss were reported more frequently than those representing greater loss, for example, more women reported staining their clothes (33.6%) than the bed (18.1%) and the floor (6.2%). Overall, indicators related to quantity and rate of blood flow had higher frequencies compared with symptom and intervention-related/comment-related indicators.
conclusionWomen quantify bleeding during and after delivery in varied ways and some women do not see bleeding as problematic. This suggests the need for standard messaging to address subjectivity. The range of indicators and varied frequencies highlight the challenges of measuring excessive bleeding from self-reports. More work is needed in improving and testing validity of questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.